Klausner v. Annie's, Inc.

Background

Jessica Klausner brought a proposed class action against Annie’s, Inc. concerning boxes of Bunny Fruit Snacks—Tropical Treat. She alleged that the opaque boxes contained more than 60% empty space, or “slack-fill,” that served no useful purpose and made consumers think they were buying more fruit snacks than the boxes contained. The box stated that it contained five pouches, each with 0.8 ounces of product, for a total net weight of four ounces. Klausner alleged that she bought the product multiple times from stores, including ShopRite, and sought damages, statutory damages, an injunction, costs, attorney’s fees, and certification of a New York class.

Her amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, fraud, and unjust enrichment. Annie’s moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Rulings on Injunctive Relief and Consumer-Protection Claims

The court granted the motion to dismiss Klausner’s request for injunctive relief on behalf of herself and the proposed class. Because Klausner alleged that she had repeatedly purchased the product, the court concluded that she knew about the amount of slack-fill and therefore had not plausibly alleged a likely future injury. The court also reasoned that her statement that she would buy the product again only if its packaging were fixed did not show a future risk of being misled.

The court dismissed the claims under New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350. Those provisions address deceptive business practices and false advertising. The court held that the front label prominently disclosed the actual amount of product and that Klausner did not allege that the four-ounce disclosure was inaccurate. As a matter of law, the court concluded that the alleged empty space would not materially mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances. Because of that conclusion, the court did not decide Annie’s separate arguments that Klausner had failed to allege a legally recognizable injury or that the slack-fill was nonfunctional.

Rulings on the Remaining Claims

The court dismissed the negligent-misrepresentation claim for the same failure to allege materially misleading packaging and, independently, because an ordinary purchase from stores did not establish the special relationship needed for that claim.

The court dismissed the express-warranty and implied-warranty claims because Klausner did not allege that she bought the product directly from Annie’s, and she alleged only economic loss rather than personal injury. The court also dismissed the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim because Klausner had not adequately pleaded a state-law breach-of-warranty claim.

The court dismissed the fraud claim because the packaging allegations did not plausibly show that a reasonable consumer would be misled or that Klausner reasonably relied on an impression created solely by the box’s size. It dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim because it duplicated Klausner’s deception-based statutory and tort theories and could not serve as a substitute for defective claims.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Klausner requested permission to file a second amended complaint in one sentence at the end of her opposition brief. The court denied that request because it did not include a proposed pleading or explain how the defects could be corrected, and because Klausner had already amended once.

Judge Philip M. Halpern granted Annie’s motion to dismiss Klausner’s amended complaint with prejudice. The court canceled the scheduled oral argument, directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion, and closed the case.